Voting in America essays

Voting in America essays Although every American citizen over 18 years of age is allowed to vote only about half of those turn out to vote on Election Day. For the last 50 years we have never had a higher percentage than 62.8 of eligible Americans voting. The percentage of voters tends to be between 60% and 50% during a presidential election year. Years when only Congressmen are being elected the percentages are even lower. It is very important for Americans to vote because those who are elected to office make the laws and decisions that affect the well being of our country. There are some historical, social, and economical issues throughout our past and today, however that explain why people don't vote. After the creation of the Constitution, two factions arose. They were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were for the ratification of the proposed Constitution, because they thought the Articles of Confederation were weak and the new Republic would overcome the difficulties of the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalist were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution because it didn't mention the States and their powers. Plus, it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect the people. From these two groups grew the parties we have today. The Federalists later became the current day Republicans. The Anti-Federalists lead, by Jefferson, formed the Democratic Republicans which later became known as the Democrats. Since the first election there have been three major time periods where one party controlled the government and one era where neither party could gain consistent control of the Executive branch for more than 2 or 3 elections. After the constitutions ratification the Democrats won almost all of the elections. The Democrats were largely supported by small farmers, debtors, frontier pioneers, and slaveholders. As the civil war approached, however the Democrats were split between the North and the South. Then wit...

Reillys Law of Retail Gravitation

Reilly's Law of Retail Gravitation In 1931, William J. Reilly was inspired by the law of gravity to create an application of the gravity model to measure retail trade between two cities. His work and theory, The Law of Retail Gravitation, allows us to draw trade area boundaries around cities using the distance between the cities and the population of each city. History of the Theory Reilly realized that the larger a city, the larger a trade area it would have and thus it would draw from a larger hinterland around the city. Two cities of equal size have a trade area boundary midway between the two cities. When cities are of unequal size, the boundary lies closer to the smaller city, giving the larger city a larger trade area. Reilly called the boundary between two trade areas the breaking point (BP). On that line, exactly half the population shops at either of the two cities. The formula is used between two cities to find the BP between the two. The distance between the two cities is divided by one plus the result of dividing the population of city B by the population of city A. The resulting BP is the distance from city A to the 50% boundary of the trade area. One can determine the complete trade area of a city by determining the BP between multiple cities or centers. Of course, Reillys law presumes that the cities are on a flat plain without any rivers, freeways, political boundaries, consumer preferences, or mountains to modify an individuals progress toward a city.

Enterprise and Business Development Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Enterprise and Business Development - Term Paper Example Target Market Be in one of the most highly rated industries for stability and success, Laundry services offers an opportunity to everyone who wants to earn a high return. It is the advantage is that laundry services can be located everywhere. It is possible to build brand new laundry services. Being a laundry service is probably the most overlooked fashion-related career. They should maintain a friendly, fair, and creative work environment, which respects diversity, ideas, and hard work. However, more than ever, people need laundry services, including the rich and famous or simple people who simply need to look their best in their favorite outfit. Whether the clients own expensive designer garments or whether it’s just simple cloths people trust their laundry services to remove spots, repair hems and make sure those garments looking their best (Boone, Kurtz, 1992).  Ã‚  Ã‚   The bargaining power of customers is great.   The range of services is standardized, but on the other hand laundry services is the key industry in its group which secure it from a decrease in services. Laundry services target three main groups of customers: individuals, public sector and private sector companies (hospitals, beauty salons, universities, hotels, etc). For attracting new customers Laundry service can open an advertising campaign. Primarily, it will be orie nted on the following groups of new customers: pensioners from the southern part of the city, families with children aged 5-12 years, students. Laundry service is an expert in apparel and fabric cleaning and caring that utilizes the latest solvents, technologies, and equipment to prolong the life of a piece of clothing or household item. Laundry services marketing challenge is to position service offerings as the high quality, high value-add alternative. Opportunities for Laundry service are evident. It is simple and economical. While the idea of Laundry services is not a new revelation, Laundry service provides a simple and economical means to start own business. Laundry service is one of the most needed cleaning businesses in the market today.

Employment Law Compliance Plan Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Employment Law Compliance Plan - Assignment Example Please note that the descriptions contain the consequences of the violation of the employment laws. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour applies to covered nonexempt employees (Fox & Davenport, 2013). The rate took effect from July 24, 2009. The minimum wage in Texas and Federal are equal. The federal minimum wage covers the workers of businesses with more than $500,000 (Canas & Cross, 2008). However, the administrative personnel, executives, and professional workers are exempted from the protection of the minimum wage. The non-exempted employees deserve a pay for the overtime for time worked over forty hours. The employers are liable for minimum wage if they classify the employees incorrectly as exempt when they do not qualify such status. The violation of the law attracts a fine of more than $100,000. It is a requirement for the employers to offer safety to the employees as stipulated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The employees should work in a safe environment that is free of hazards such as toxic chemicals, excessive heat and noise, and mechanical dangers. The employees can file their complaints with the Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers’ Compensation (TDIDWC) (Fox & Davenport, 2013). The employers are liable to compensate the employees as determined by TDIDWC or OSHA. Employers cannot discriminate against the employees who file such complaints. The law prohibits any form of employment discrimination based on religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, color, national origin, disability, and age. Additionally, the law stipulates that employers should not discriminate employees who comply with a subpoena (Canas & Cross, 2008). Employers who violate the law are liable to prosecution and charges imposed on them. The courts have the rights to compel the employers to give compensation to the employees who have suffered due to discrimination. The employers should not

Edith Whartons Souls Belated Essay Example for Free

Edith Whartons Souls Belated Essay Point of view always influences the way readers perceive events. In literature, the point of view the author chooses not only affects the way readers perceive and interpret events, but it also determines, to some extent, what the readers can actually see. That is, point of view guides the way readers interpret events and draw conclusions by limiting or illuminating the amount and nature of the information from which conclusions can be drawn. In Souls Belated, Edith Wharton uses point of view to illuminate the thoughts of each character individually, while concealing the thoughts of the other, and eventually to highlight the vastly different mindsets of both characters involved. Wharton first does this by revealing Lydias thoughts to the readers while hiding Gannetts. At the exposition, the story is told in third person, from Lydias point of view. This technique allows readers to see directly into Lydias mind. To know what Gannet is thinking, however, they must accept Lydias version of his thoughts: He was thinking of it now, just as she was; they had been thinking about it in unison ever since they had entered the train (673). Since readers have no direct insight into Gannetts brain, they have no way to know what he is really thinking, but neither do they have, as yet, any substantial reason to doubt Lydias interpretation of events. The third-person-limited point of view is particularly effective because it allows readers to view Lydias thoughts, opinions, and interpretations as facts. If Wharton had chosen to tell the story in first person, from Lydias point of view, the narrative would be clearly subjective. Readers would be aware of the limitations of a first person narrator. Consequently, they would have plenty of incentive to question the accuracy of Lydias perception. On the other hand, if the narrator were omniscient, it would describe Gannetts thoughts as well as Lydias and thereby remove all questions in this matter. The actual third person narrator seems removed enough from the action to appear to be an impartial observer; this inclines readers to accept the narrators statements as facts. That the point of view is limited, however, also leaves in question whether Lydias view of Gannett is correct, whether readers should accept it at face value; this is what  creates the subtle suspense of the story. Wharton builds on this suspense by suggesting that Lydia does know Gannett well enough to know his mind, or, at least, that Lydia thinks she knows Gannett well enough to know: now that he and she were alone she knew exactly what was passing through his mind; she could almost hear him asking himself what he should say to her (673). This not only further inclines readers to accept Lydias interpretation of Gannetts thoughts and emotions, but it also encourages them to be sympathetic to her. Lydia knows what Gannett is thinking, and she dreads it. Since readers know Lydias mind but not Gannetts, they cannot help but see the situation through her eyes. In order to see properly through Lydias eyes, in order to know why she dreads Gannett inevitably speaking to her, readers need to have some sense of her personality. The point of view helps accomplish this as well; it allows readers to extract information about Lydias personality from her reactions to her own memories. For example, when Lydia remembers her ex-husband and her reasons for leaving him, [she] had preferred to think that Tillotson had himself embodied all her reasons for leaving him. Yet she had not left him till she met Gannett (673). From this, readers know that Lydia, at the beginning at least, is not self-secure enough to have left her husband to be on her own. She could not turn from him without having someone else to turn to. However, this discovery had not been agreeable to her self-esteem (673), indicating that not only is Lydia aware of her own insecurity but also that it is something which bothers her. Lydia wants to think of herself as an independent woman but so far has not been as wholly independent as she would like to be. Once readers understand this part of Lydias personality, they are better prepared to understand why Lydia struggles against dependency. Specifically, she struggles against marrying Gannett because she views it as a particularly tempting form of dependency. Lydia fears that by marrying Gannett, she will lose whatever sense of self she has developed since leaving her husband; similarly, she worries that Gannett will lose his sense of self in marrying her. To look upon him as the instrument of her  liberation; to resist herself in the least tendency to a wifely taking possession of his future; had seemed to Lydia the one way of maintaining the dignity of their relation (675). At the same time, however, she realizes that this view of their relationship is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain: she was aware of a growing inability to keep her thoughts fixed on the essential point the point of parting with Gannett (675). Through what the narrator says and does not say about their relationship, readers can infer that Lydia is growing dependent on Gannett but is still trying to fight against it. The insight Wharton gives readers into Lydias personality contrasts sharply with how little they know of Gannett. Because of the narrators limited point of view, readers know only as much about Gannett as Lydia knows. Readers know what Gannett says and what he does, as well as what Lydia presumes he thinks, but they have no way to observe Gannetts thoughts for themselves. Even at one point where the narrative seems to shift to a more omniscient point of view, the narrator can only say, He looked at her hopelessly. Nothing is more perplexing to man than the mental process of a woman who reasons her emotions (678). The narrative still does not describe exactly what Gannett is thinking; it only describes Gannetts action, then makes a general statement which may or may not apply to Gannett specifically. Readers have no way of knowing whether Gannett actually thinks this statement or not; for all they know, it could be what Lydia is thinking, what she presumes about Gannetts state of mind. Not only does this point of view technique make the readers want to know what Gannett is thinking, but it also binds them emotionally to Lydia. They want to know what Gannett is thinking as badly as she does. After building up sufficient desire, Wharton finally satisfies the readers curiosity by shifting the point of view to allow them access to Gannetts thoughts. This shift also corresponds with an important twist in the plot; it comes at the beginning of their last conversation in the hotel room, just before Lydia suggests to Gannett that the only was to resolve their relationship is for her to leave him. Gannett threw away his cigarette; the sound of her voice made him want to see her face (685). Limited though it  is, this is the first time readers can witness Gannetts thoughts directly. Throughout the conversation, the shift intensifies. She sank again on the sofa, hiding her face in her hands. Gannett stood above her perplexedly; he felt as though she were being swept away by some implacable current while he stood helpless on its bank (688). Now, the roles are reversed: readers can know Gannetts emotional state from what the narrator tells them, but they must divine Lydias from he r words and actions. That this point of view shift comes before Lydias suggestion to leave Gannett is important because it brings with it a tone shift. When the readers can see Gannetts desires and emotions, they begin to feel sympathy for him. Now they can see the events through his eyes, too. Conversely, when the narrative distances itself from Lydias thoughts, it distances the readers from Lydia as well. While this distance does not necessarily cancel out any sympathy the readers have for Lydia, their sympathy for her does not overpower their sympathy for Gannett. Indeed, it is because of this newfound sympathy that Lydias, My leaving you, (689) does not seem to the readers like a desirable outcome. Since they now sympathize with both characters, they do not like anything that would cause either one of them pain. An act that would cause both characters pain would be doubly bad. Wharton continues this sympathy for Gannett by telling the last section of the story, where Lydia actually tries to leave him, from his point of view. Wharton also uses this point of view to answer many of Lydias, and therefore the readers, questions. For instance, the readers now get to see how Gannett views marriage, particularly marriage to Lydia. Even had his love lessened, he was now bound to her by a hundred ties of pity and self-reproach; and she, poor child! must turn back to hum as Latude returned to his cell (690). Gannett feels responsible for Lydia as well as bound to her; he possibly even feels somewhat fatherly toward her, as if she was a child who he had an obligation to look after. These are all attitudes opposed to Lydias pride and desire for independence. As Gannett watches Lydia walk away from the hotel, his thoughts continue: If any thought emerged from the tumult of his sensations, it was that he must let her go if she wished it. He had spoken last night of his rights: what were they? At the last issue, he and she were two separate beings, not made one by the miracle of common forbearances, duties, abnegations, but bound together in a noyade of passion that left them resisting yet clinging as they went down. (690) From this statement, readers know Gannetts true attitude toward marriage, that it is a spiritual joining that would give him some sort of right to Lydia. Not only is Gannetts opinion of marriage contrary to Lydias opinion of it, but it also conflicts with what Lydia believes Gannetts opinion to be. Their isolated points of view heighten the contrast between Gannetts and Lydias feelings toward marriage. This separation reminds the readers that although they can see into both Lydias and Gannetts minds, there is no way for either character to know what the other is thinking. Each character is completely cut off from the other; the only way they have to intuit thoughts is for them to interpret the words and actions of the other, just as readers must do, in turn, for each character. The isolation that lets the readers see this limitation is the same isolation that hides, ironically, the limitation from both characters. Lydia, for example, felt she knew exactly what was passing through his mind (673), even though it is her uncertainty that makes what Gannett is thinking so nervewracking for her. In the same way, Gannett later feels that Lydia is walking into a world where no one would understand her no one would pity her and he, who did both, was powerless to come to her aid (690). If Gannett truly understood and pitied Lydia, he would have understood that she is too independent to want is pity. But perhaps the most telling point of view shift comes at the end of the story, where Wharton retreats into an omniscient, objectively descriptive narrator. As Gannett watches Lydia leave the boat and come back to the hotel, back to him, [he] sat down beside a table; a Bradshaw lay at his elbow, and mechanically, without knowing what he did, he began looking out  the trains to Paris (691). The distance of the point of view echoes Gannetts distance from his own emotions. He acts mechanically, not knowing what he is doing because he does not know what he is feeling. Indeed, the distance of the narrative reflects the net numbness of the conflicting emotions that Lydia and Gannett are both feeling. Each must resign himself to marrying the one he loves.

A Nineteenth Century Ghost Story in The Turn of The Screw by Henry Jame

A Nineteenth Century Ghost Story in The Turn of The Screw by Henry James The Turn of The Screw is a classic Gothic ghost novella with a wicket twist set in a grand old house at Bly. The story is ambiguous; we never fully know whether the apparitions exist or not and we are left with many more questions than answers. The Governess is left in charge of two young children, Miles and Flora, of whom she later becomes obsessed with, describing them as 'angelic'. She has no contact with her employer from London, the children's enigmatic uncle once there, sparking suspicions of the children being unwanted. The anonymous Governess' obsessive nature is taken to another level, with the darker side of Bly appearing. Her sanity is called into question with her continued revelations of apparitions around the family's country residence. The story itself could not have had a bigger twist in it, from being overwhelmed by the beauty and innocence of the two orphans under he care to being convinced that ghosts of her predecessor and the master's former valet, Miss Jessel and Peter Quint, both who die in mysterious circumstances, have come to possess the souls of her charges. The Governess begins to take ever more desperate measures to protect them, but is it enough? A typical Gothic story in many respects, The Turn of the Screw conforms to our expectations by sharing many key features, style and themes typical to nineteenth century horror fiction. A gothic story is a type of romantic fiction that predominated in English Literature in the last third of the 18th century and the first two decades of the 19th century. The setting for this type of st... ...riously wrong with her. Taking all of these points into account all of these points, I am sure that you now agree that The Turn of the Screw is a typical 19th century gothic ghost story. The story itself has many characteristics typical of a gothic story and it is based around two apparitions, which is a necessity in any ghost story. Gothic stories were very popular during this period due to Darwin's book, 'The Origin of Species' which hugely questioned Christian beliefs. People were no longer sure of religion, and became very superstitious, with Ghost stories becoming very popular. They had always thought god came first; now science was starting to take over. In the 19th century people were unsure about what was real in the world. The Victorians did not know what to believe about in their world and spirituality.

Absolutism and Constitutionalism

1. Why did monarchs in the late 16th/early 17th centuries need new sources of income? Why did monarchs wish to get their income without the permission of the nobility? 2.Explain the role that each of the following played in the failure of England achieving absolutism, as well as the success of the French: England France  · Religion – Religion  · Parliament/Tradition – Estates General  · Personalities of Leaders – Personalities of Leaders  · Trust of Nobility – Trust of nobility 3. Henry IV came to the throne and helped to end the French Wars of Religion.After over 30 years of civil war, France was a wreck politically and economically. To set the stage for absolutism, he and his finance minister, the duke of Sully, needed to strengthen certain aspects of the nation and weaken others. Explain where the following fell into their plans, using the terms in parenthesis in your answer:  · power of nobility (parlements)  · increased money for crown (m onopolies)  · increased opportunity for economic success (canals, corvee) 4. After Henry IV’s assassination, his 9 year old son Louis XIII became king.Too young to rule, his mother named a brilliant official to serve as his regent. Explain how the following policies show the nature of Richelieu’s â€Å"raison d’etat†:  · Use of intendants  · Actions in the 30 Years War (1618-1648)  · Treatment of nobles  · Treatment of Huguenots 5. Describe the factors that led to the revolt (known as the Fronde) of the French nobility against the young Louis XIV and Cardinal Mazarin (1649-1652). What lesson did the Fronde teach Louis XIV? How did it help prepare the French people for absolutist rule?Helpful Hints for Reading this Section: o The first part of this reading provides an overview of the two systems of government that developed, and offers you hints as to why they developed as they did. Read this carefully so that many of the details listed in future sections will mean more to you. o There is a big difference between the English Parliament and the French parlements (note difference in spellings). The Parliament (-ia) historically had the ability to declare whether taxes were just (fair) or not, and so the kings/queens always had to go before Parliament whenever they needed money.Parliament, located in London, had the ability to make laws. French parlements (-e) were different in that there were many regional parlements as opposed to one central one, and they lacked the ability to make laws. Rather, the French parlements just had the authority to accept or refuse policies proposed by the monarchy. The French also had the Estates General to serve as its legislature, but it was a medieval creation that never really caught on among the French nobles. It could only meet when it was called into session by the king, and that was very rare (met once between 1618 and 1788).Chapter 13 – England 1. The Policy of Circumvention refer s to the various English kings’ efforts to go around, or circumvent, Parliament in their gathering of money for the crown. Explain how each of the following was an effort to raise or save money, and why it angered nobles/members of Parliament:  · impositions- These additional custom duties were seen as taxation on imports and exports by Parliament and as requiring parliamentary consent. They angered nobles and members of Parliament because they viewed it as taxation without consent. selling titles of nobility (think supply and demand– why would nobles feel like they each had less power if there were more nobles in the nation? )- people did anything they could to get a higher position so of course they would buy titles of nobility and since there were many nobles now, previous nobles felt less power because there weren’t as many â€Å"important† titles for everyone.  · James I’s role as peacemaker- 2. Summarize the many religious complaints that were raised against King James I. In defending the episcopacy, what did James mean when he retorted â€Å"No bishops, no king (pg. 452). – James viewed the proposal to replace bishops with presbyteries as an attempt to diminish his power in the church so he quoted that. 3. What actions led Parliament force Charles I to accept the Petition of Right? How would Charles I have attempted to defend himself and his actions? What freedoms did the Petition guarantee? -disputes between Parliament and King Charles I over the execution of the Thirty Years’ War, Parliament refused to grant subsidies to support the war effort, leading to Charles gathering â€Å"forced loans† without Parliamentary approval and arbitrarily imprisoning those who refused to pay.The Petition guaranteed restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation, forced billeting of soldiers, imprisonment without cause, and restricts the use of martial law. 4. Why did Parliament not meet between 1629 and 1640? De scribe the circumstances that required their meeting in 1640. – The Triennial Act was intended to prevent kings from ruling without Parliament, as Charles had done between 1629-1640. The act required that Parliament meet for at least a fifty-day session once every three years. 5. Create a timeline using the following terms, explaining what each is and how the terms relate to one-another.  · Short Parliament Scottish Invasion  · Long Parliament’s New Laws (1640-41)  · Grand Remonstrance  · Invasion of Parliament (Roundhead/Cavaliers) 1639-1640 – Scottish Invasion= Breakdown of Charles's government of Scotland and two attempts to impose his will by force. Scots rose in 1639 against Charles' introduction of the English Prayer Book into Scotland, the anti-royalist London merchants encouraged the invading Scots to capture Newcastle. This they did in 1640, totally disrupting the export of coal. The Scottish army remained in Newcastle for a year and charged the Corporation a regular fee for billeting its troops. 640 – Short Parliament= sat from 13 April to 5 May 1640 during the reign of King Charles 1 of England and called â€Å"short† because it only lasted 3 weeks. He was forced to call the Short Parliament primarily to obtain money to finance his military struggle with Scotland in the Bishops’ War. -Long Parliament= established to pass financial bills. It received its name from the fact that through an Act of Parliament, it could be dissolved only with the agreement of the members and those members did not agree to its dissolution until after the English Civil War and at the end of interregnum in 1660. 641 -Grand Remonstrance= a list of grievances presented to King Charles I by English Parliament on 1 December 1641, but passed by the House of Commons on the 22nd of November 1641, during the Long Parliament; it was one of the chief events which were to precipitate the English Civil War. 1642-1651 -Invasion of Parlia ment (Roundhead/Cavaliers)= was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians (Roundheads) and Royalists (Cavaliers).The first (1642–46) and second (1648–49) civil wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third war (1649–51) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The Civil War ended with the Parliamentary victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651. 6. Explain how the â€Å"Rump Parliament† and, more appropriately, Oliver Cromwell, ruled England during the period between Charles I and Charles II. – ruled first England, and then Ireland and Scotland from 1649 to 1660.After the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I, the republic's existence was initially declared by â€Å"An Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth† adopted by the Rump Parliament, on 19 May 1649. The governmen t took the form of direct personal rule by Oliver Cromwell. Just before and after the execution of King Charles I on 30 January 1649, the Rump passed a number of acts of Parliament creating the legal basis for the republic. Helpful Hints for Reading this Section: o To help remember the order of the English monarchs, try to remember the â€Å"Cromwell Sandwich. As with any good sandwich, it is named after the meat, which goes in the middle. Surrounding the meat is usually CHeese. In the Cromwell Sandwich then, the buns equal James (James I on top, or first, and James II bottom, or last) and the CHeese equals CHarles (Charles I on top of the meat or first, and then Charles II below the meat or second). Thus the order goes Bun (James I), Cheese (Charles I), Meat (Oliver Cromwell), Cheese (Charles II), and Bun (James II). I don’t know, it helps me. : ) 1. Describe England under the Restoration of the Monarchy (what powers did King have?Religion? )- began in 1660 when the English , Scottish and Irish monarchies were all restored under Charles II. 2. Religion and the monarchy became an increasingly touchy subject in Restoration-era England. Discuss how the following acts/events display the conflict developing between monarch and Parliament:  · Clarendon Code= The Clarendon Code was a series of four legal statutes passed between 1661-1665 which effectively re-established the supremacy of the Anglican Church after the interlude of Cromwell's Commonwealth, and ended toleration for dissenting religions. Declaration of Indulgence= Charles II of England's attempt to extend religious liberty to Protestant nonconformists and Roman Catholics in his realms, by suspending the execution of the penal laws that punished recusants from the Church of England. Charles issued the Declaration on 15 March 1672.  · Test Act (note who this one was aimed at)= were a series of English penal laws that served as a religious test for public office and imposed various civil disabili ties on Roman Catholics and Nonconformists.The principle was that none but persons professing the Established Church were eligible for public employment, and the severe penalties pronounced against recusants, whether Catholic or Nonconformist, were affirmations of this principle. In practice nonconformists were often exempted from some of these laws through the regular passage of Acts of Indemnity 3. Both politics and religion played a large role in the forced removal of James II as King of England. Summarize the role of each, and note what served as the immediate cause of the Glorious Revolution. . Describe the political philosophy of John Locke found in his Two Treatises on Government. 5. How could one point to the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights as early successes for the history of Democracy? Helpful Hints for Reading this Section: o When trying to keep straight Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, think about what they stood for in regards to man’s â€Å"nat ural state. † Hobbes, who believed man was horrible, awful, wicked nasty and cruel, was a â€Å"Hater. † Thus, the first letter of his name and how he felt both match up (Hobbes; Hater).Locke, who said man was naturally good, was all about the Love. Thus, his name and beliefs are also connected by a first-letter principle (Locke; Love). Chapter 13 – France 1. Explain how the theory of Divine Right strengthened Louis XIV’s power as king. How did his saying â€Å"L’etat, c’est moi† reflect the teachings of Bishop Bossuet? – The Divine Right strengthened Louis XIV’s by saying that dictators, nobles, and parliament don’t have power over the people. â€Å"L’etat, c’est moi† means â€Å"I am state† reflected the teaching of Bishop Bossuet by saying God has the almighty power. 2.The Palace at Versailles is an integral part of Louis XIV’s strong reign. Answer the following with regard to life in Versailles:  · To â€Å"domesticate† something means to make it tame, or to train it to be useful to humans. In what ways did Louis XIV â€Å"domesticate the nobility? †  · Why did Louis XIV order nobles to follow such trivial social rules and elaborate social functions at Versailles? Louis ordered nobles to follow trivial social rules and elaborate social functions at Versailles because he wanted them to have less power, so they won’t be a threat to him. What types of people did Louis choose to head his government agencies? Why did he prefer to use them instead of the nobles, as was the case in other times and other countries? Louis XIV replaced the princes who had previously held positions as ministers with new aristocrats who feared him more. This gave Louis XIV, the King of France more power. 3. Explain the ways in which Jean-Baptiste Colbert made France’s economy superior to any other nations’ in the 17th century. How did the marqu is of Louvois dramatically increase the effectiveness of France’s military? 4.Louis XIV’s France became so powerful that no one nation could likely stand up and defeat the French. For that reason, Louis chose to involve himself in a series of wars that would eventually break his nation’s finances. Include each of Louis XIV’s war in a timeline that shows the following:  · Years fought  · Reasons for War  · How foreign nations worked to Balance out French power  · Outcomes of War 5. Why did Louis XIV feel it was necessary to revoke the Edict of Nantes? What impact did this move have on his nation? Huguenots as a threat to his power.Huguenots through his reign were hostile to the crown and launched revolts. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes caused large numbers of them to flee to other protestant countries and establish themselves there, weakening the French economy. 6. Explain why the War of Spanish Succession (and the subsequent Treaty of Utrec ht) makes a fitting culmination to a. the grand wishes of Louis XIV’s plans for domination of Europe, and; b. the principle of Balance of Power used to stop Louis XIV and contain French power 7. Consider Louis XIV’s Legacy. Create a list of positive and negative aspects of Louis XIV’s legacy.Then, create a thesis statement that evaluates the impact of Louis XIV on French history. Be sure your thesis 1) takes a side/has direction, and 2) does not simply list 3 things Louis did good and/or bad. o Intendants were government officials (royal civil servants,’ according to the text) in charge of oversight duties across all areas of French society. They were responsible for making sure that all tax money collected by regional tax officials went directly to the king (as opposed to some going to the collector’s pocket), and to oversee the training and discipline of the French military.They studied efficiency in production and carried their lessons to emergi ng French industries. Possibly the most important aspect of the intendants was the fact that they were not of strong noble birth. Richelieu and Louis XIV realized that using nobles to do the most important jobs of government ran counter to the idea of centralizing full power in the hands of the crown. For that reason, the intendants typically came from middle class backgrounds, people who did not possess large lands of their own. Thus, these peoples’ success in life was fully-dependent upon the king.If they became corrupt, another intendant would call them out and they would lose their job and what was likely their only chance to be very successful in life. This created an incredibly driven, obedient and loyal bureaucracy for the French kings. o During the Counter-Reformation, several different groups of Catholics came up with various ways they saw as correct in regards to Catholicism. The Jesuits were likely the most famous and most successful, as they traveled to every coas tline and set up schools and monasteries in most all prominent nations.One of the Jesuits’ key messages to people was, â€Å"we can help save you. † By this, the Jesuits promoted the fact that people who were Catholic could be guaranteed salvation, so long as they followed the 7 sacraments and did as their priest told them. Another group, the Jansenists, saw this as untrue. Much like Luther and Calvin, the Jansenists believed that there was nothing people could do on earth to guarantee their salvation. They still believed in following all 7 of the Sacraments and other areas of Catholic doctrine, but they said that getting into heaven had to be a â€Å"gift† of God’s grace.A big religious dispute broke out within the Catholic church, and the influential Jesuits led an out-cry of opposition against the Jansenists. The point the text is trying to make with the Jansenists is that their group offered a form of Catholicism that included aspects of many Protesta nt religions (role of faith/grace as gift for salvation etc. ), which potentially could have kept French Huguenots (French Protestants) within the Catholic faith and kept them within France. When Louis XIV outlawed Jansenists, he made legal only the strongly anti-Protestant Jesuit Catholics, who began pushing for strong laws against Protestants.